Re: Plutonium and Enriched Uranium - Powerpc

This is a discussion on Re: Plutonium and Enriched Uranium - Powerpc ; "J. P. Young" wrote in message news:2ac8b827.0310091047.4fe49a3@posting.google.co m... > > OLD MESSAGE DAVE! > > So, the fact that you posted this twenty days ago makes it old and > irrelevant? Have you gained a lot of new insight since ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: Plutonium and Enriched Uranium

  1. Re: Plutonium and Enriched Uranium

    "J. P. Young" wrote in message
    news:2ac8b827.0310091047.4fe49a3@posting.google.co m...

    > > OLD MESSAGE DAVE!

    >
    > So, the fact that you posted this twenty days ago makes it old and
    > irrelevant? Have you gained a lot of new insight since then, and thus
    > can't be held responsible for what you posted that long ago? Are you
    > ready to admit that you were wrong now? Are you ready to admit that
    > all the reports on the reactors in Iran specified that "enriched
    > uranium" and NOT "plutonium" was what was discovered as you claimed
    > here?


    Say, JP, who do we all know who was huge on the Mac? Huge! A real devotee
    from Texas who lived on the Mac? Who never uses her own name on the net any
    more for good reason? Do you know anyone like that?

    Now you are in your role as net cop using an old name. Good grief, a name
    not used since she moved to Oregon. Who could it be?

    Yes, a 20 day old post is old and irrelevant. That you feel it necessary to
    continue to drag it up repeatedly to attack Ken pretty well tells you have
    moved into an area of hysteria. Nothing new to post on, so you post dozens
    of attacks on a 20 day old post. Interesting, you claim to have proved that
    Ken "lied" yet both he and I posted some articles supporting his statement.
    You didn't like the sources. Only yours seem to count. At the very least,
    that references were made to articles should trash your wild claims to have
    "proven" Ken to be a "liar." But it seems not to have deterred your angry
    claims. That you have so closely allied yourself with David Moore, easily
    the most notorious troll in Internet history is speaking volumes about you.
    The more you stalk Pangborn, and run off wildly about old posts the more you
    classify yourself as just one more Usenet crank! I can only wonder why you
    feel so compelled to misrepresent what others say.





    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

  2. Re: Plutonium and Enriched Uranium

    "John Gault" wrote in message news:<3f869c36_5@corp.newsgroups.com>...
    >"J. P. Young" wrote in message
    >news:2ac8b827.0310091047.4fe49a3@posting.google.co m...
    >>> OLD MESSAGE DAVE!

    >>So, the fact that you posted this twenty days ago makes
    >>it old and irrelevant? Have you gained a lot of new
    >>insight since then, and thus can't be held responsible
    >>for what you posted that long ago? Are you ready to
    >>admit that you were wrong now? Are you ready to admit
    >>that all the reports on the reactors in Iran specified
    >>that "enriched uranium" and NOT "plutonium" was
    >>what was discovered as you claimed here?


    You did say that posts from 20 days ago (or more) are irrelevant
    below. I am assuming that the other answers are that you haven't
    gained any new insight, you're not ready to admit that you were wrong,
    and you're not willing to admit (or even discuss) your ridiculous
    contentions any further in an attempt to avoid looking even stupider
    than you already do.


    >Say, JP, who do we all know who was huge on the Mac?
    >Huge! A real devotee from Texas who lived on the Mac?
    >Who never uses her own name on the net any
    >more for good reason? Do you know anyone like that?


    How did we get on the subject of Macs and people I know that use Macs
    what bizarre associations you make. Did I even mention Macs in any
    of my recent posts? Anyway, to answer your riddles, since I always
    answer yours and you rarely answer mine, my answers are:

    1. Say, JP, who do we all know who was huge on the Mac? I know, the
    answer is Steve Jobs I met him once at the NeXT facility in
    California. We were using the main conference room and he needed it,
    but he was pretty nice about kicking us out. Our meeting with the NeXT
    techs had run a little long anyway :-) Everybody knows him, and he was
    the creative force behind much of the Mac.
    2. A real devotee from Texas who lived on the Mac? -- Now that would
    have to be my friend, Joe White. He does Mac consulting in Houston and
    is a true master and devotee.
    3. Who never uses her own name on the net any more for good reason? Do
    you know anyone like that? You may have stumped me with that last
    one. Wait, it could be you, except you specified a female. Of course,
    perhaps I'm just making a bad assumption and you really are female.
    You've repeatedly shown that you have no testicular fortitude, so I'm
    guessing that the answer to the last one is you, "John Gault". Am I
    right? Did I win?


    >Now you are in your role as net cop using an old name.


    I still seem to be using J. P. Young. It's the name I've used for the
    past seven years on Usenet (and for most of my life off of Usenet), as
    you know. That's a strange comment to insert in the midst of all the
    questions.


    >Good grief, a name not used since she moved to Oregon.
    >Who could it be?


    No, that Oregon hint didn't help either. I know a few people in
    Washington, but no one springs to mind in Oregon. I guess you'll just
    have to tell me who you think I know there, and why it's relevant.


    >Yes, a 20 day old post is old and irrelevant. That you feel it
    >necessary to continue to drag it up repeatedly to attack Ken
    >pretty well tells you have moved into an area of hysteria.
    >Nothing new to post on, so you post dozens of attacks on a
    >20 day old post. Interesting, you claim to have proved that
    >Ken "lied" yet both he and I posted some articles supporting
    >his statement. You didn't like the sources. Only yours seem
    >to count.


    You and Ken did both post articles and give sources. Most of them even
    used the words "enriched uranium" or "plutonium". Some even used both
    terms in the same article. I addressed each and every one of these
    articles that you claimed supported you, showing why each one did not.
    In some cases, I even showed why your hand-picked articles DISPROVED
    Ken's absurd claims. Perhaps some of these references will refresh
    your memory as to how that went:

    http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl...ing.google.com

    http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl...ing.google.com

    http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl...ing.google.com

    http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl...ing.google.com

    On the other hand, you or Ken could never be bothered to refute or
    even discuss the articles that I posted. I have posted my six summary
    points on this issue several times. Here is one set:

    http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...le.com&rnum=19

    Where is your response to those? Where is Ken's response? Where is
    Kaiserdrvr's response? You'd think that between the three of you that
    you'd be able to address those points instead of spending all your
    time trying to distort my positions and making ad hominem attacks. I
    suppose the lack of functioning brain cells is hampering your ability
    to respond. It's true, you've had 20 days to come up with a response.
    Still nothing. If you had any responses, I would address those. As it
    is, I must continue to point out that you apparently lack the ability
    to respond. Your only defense is to ignore everything and then say
    that this was so long ago it doesn't matter anymore. The CRY
    (challenge, run away, and yowl) at work again.


    >At the very least, that references were made to articles should
    >trash your wild claims to have "proven" Ken to be a "liar."


    First, those articles did nothing to support your position and only
    showed that neither you nor Ken had any concept of what you were
    talking about. Even the article that YOU posted that discussed a
    specific difference between "plutonium" and "enriched uranium" could
    not penetrate your feeble mind. Finally, I have asked you to point out
    the post where I said that Ken lied about this issue. As usual, just
    as you have done on everything else, you have dodged the issue and not
    responded. I have always taken the position that I cannot tell if you
    and Ken are liars or ignorant people with no reading comprehension on
    this issue.


    >I can only wonder why you
    >feel so compelled to misrepresent what others say.


    Do you have a handy example of where I have misrepresented what others
    say? I'll happily provide several examples where you have done so.
    Just ask and tell me how many you'd like.

  3. Re: The JP Young show


    "J. P. Young" wrote in message
    news:2ac8b827.0310120126.3916c0b1@posting.google.c om...


    > You did say that posts from 20 days ago (or more) are irrelevant
    > below.


    After a time Mr. Young, yes, old messages are irrelevant when they have
    been asked and answered repeatedly. Flogging them for weeks in some apparent
    Usenet jihad in far flung irrelevant newsgroups as you do, is more than a
    casual obsession.

    > 1. Say, JP, who do we all know who was huge on the Mac? I know, the
    > answer is Steve Jobs - I met him once at the NeXT facility in
    > California. We were using the main conference room and he needed it,
    > but he was pretty nice about kicking us out. Our meeting with the NeXT
    > techs had run a little long anyway :-) Everybody knows him, and he was
    > the creative force behind much of the Mac.
    > 2. A real devotee from Texas who lived on the Mac? -- Now that would
    > have to be my friend, Joe White. He does Mac consulting in Houston and
    > is a true master and devotee.
    > 3. Who never uses her own name on the net any more for good reason? Do
    > you know anyone like that? - You may have stumped me with that last
    > one. Wait, it could be you, except you specified a female. Of course,
    > perhaps I'm just making a bad assumption and you really are female.
    > You've repeatedly shown that you have no testicular fortitude, so I'm
    > guessing that the answer to the last one is you, "John Gault". Am I
    > right? Did I win?
    > say? I'll happily provide several examples where you have done so.
    > Just ask and tell me how many you'd like.


    Nice duck and cover.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

+ Reply to Thread